It must be a funny alignment of the stars if I have to come to the defense of Katie Holmes. But she and the film she’s in here at Sundance–”Son of No One”–have been smeared and maligned by the Hollywood Reporter and US Weekly. The result is dozens of automated pickups by blogs, causing a search nightmare based on total falsehoods. I was at the press screening of Dito Montiel’s “Son of No One” on Monday. No one chuckled or snorted when Katie was on screen. No one walked out of the film. There was no exodus, no running for the doors. No “collective groan.” The Hollywood Reporter–now a tabloid effort–reported this even though the writer of the piece was not present. Then US Weekly regurgitated the material from THR. The THR editor, Lindsay Powers, came from tabloid US,manufacturer of celebrity fictions. So you can’t believe a word of any of it.
“Son of No One” is Dito Montiel’s follow up to his very good “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints.” Like “Saints,” this film stars Channing Tatum. He gives a powerful performance as a crooked cop. Katie plays his wife. Montiel in a sense has made his “Prince of the City,” very much influenced by the legendary Sidney Lumet. This is Katie trying to break her image of a goody two shoes. She is perfectly fine. Her character curses several times in the first fifteen minutes. No one laughs. Her delivery is impeccable.
Inside “Son of No One” lurks an outsized fun performance by Al Pacino. The THR report –then copied into US–suggests that Al is working with a “wink” to the audience. Hardly. He is chewing scenery and having a ball, but he’s dead serious about his work. The rest of the cast is also quite good, from Juliette Binoche and Ray Liotta to two kids: Jake Cherry and Brian Gilbert.
The end of “Son of No One” may have caused a problem on Monday. There are three or four fade ins and outs mixed with type. You’re not sure the movie is over. Then there’s a “surprise” ending that explains the movie’s central mystery. Everyone remained seated until the end, however.
It does seem to me that Katie Holmes was attacked by THR and then US Weekly. Do they hate her because she’s married to Tom Cruise. We can’t really pile on Katie for her personal choices masked as movie criticism. We may not agree with her personal life, but that’s another area completely.
And to see how it works–a lie, a misreported story, then exponentially grows through the internet and cannot be reversed–is very distressing. It’s the reason why the web is just full of sludge, unmonitored and unchecked. THR should apologize, and US Weekly–which had no reporter there–should retract their story. I just don’t understand the upside of trying to kill an independent feature, shown once to a small audience. It’s a pathetic misuse of the press.